Defence firms in the UK and Poland have signed a deal worth over £4 billion to continue the next phase of Poland’s future air defence programme, Narew.

UK firm MBDA has signed the sub-contract with Polish defence company PGZ, in a programme that will provide Polish forces with an enhanced ground-based air defence system capable of launching missiles to engage air threats, such as cruise missiles and fighter jets, at ranges of more than 40 kilometres.

It will create more than 1,000 Common Anti-Air Modular Missiles – Extended Range (CAMM-ER) and over 100 iLaunchers.

According to the UK Government:

“It is the culmination of years of close collaboration and will strengthen Poland’s military capabilities, while delivering on the UK Prime Minister’s priority to grow the economy and continuing to showcase British industry as a leading global defence partner.

Bringing significant benefit to both nations’ defence industries, the partnership will see British engineers from Bolton, Bristol and Stevenage working with their Polish counterparts, sharing key technologies and supporting jobs and critical skills in both countries for more than 15 years.”

Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps, said:

“This is another crucial step forward for our historic defence ties with Poland, supplying next generation air defence capabilities to act as a clear deterrent to our adversaries. We continue to fully back our thriving UK defence industry, and this landmark export deal is yet another example of the huge potential our collective defence sectors boast.”

Managing Director of MBDA UK, Chris Allam said:

“The scale and ambition of NAREW is truly impressive – building a Polish air defence shield using our CAMM family missiles and iLaunchers that will protect the entirety of Poland’s skies. The transfer of technology in NAREW will be transformative for Poland’s sovereign complex weapons capabilities, and we are deeply proud of the trust placed in us by Poland and excited for the future of our partnership with PGZ.”

Following a contract awarded by the Polish government to PGZ in September this year, the Narew system will utilise MBDA’s CAMM-ER missile, developed jointly by the UK and Italy, in addition to Polish radars, vehicles and other equipment together with the United States’ Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS). In addition to the air defence launchers and missiles, the partnership will see the UK support Poland to be able to manufacture complex missiles on Polish soil in years to come.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

    • Yes when you hear how this contract will protect the entirety of Polish skies it does leave one somewhat jealous even if they are more on the front line we can’t deny that we are somewhat open to attack from the west and particularly the High North.

      • If our government saw GBAD cover of the UK, they will gut the remaining fighter squadrons. Be careful what you wish for.

        • Hum… but when fighters are intercepting, who protect the airbase?
          And even if your country or mine (France) are not Next to Russia, it may be adequate to buy these equipment, deploy them at low readiness and have them later on ready or available to help friends in days of need.
          I Believe in air Fighters, but even in WW2 they worked with AA gin.

      • The UK won’t provide directly which means know how transfer to Poland and and a big boost to polish industry. The US would not allow that nor would be french

    • Yes, totally John. The very big elephant in the room. How about some of these for the UK! And soon! Wakey Wakey MOD.

      • And you should see the evolved T26 offerings from BAE to the RAN, Naval News 7 Nov. They look magnificent. Hope some of this development flows through to the RN for its T26 and T83 and even the T45 upgrades. Sorry I couldn’t copy the link. There are also NN articles on Navantia’s offerings in competition with T26 B2 and the corvette /A140 and the UK’s SEA Ancilia design.

        • Would be hoping for something bigger and better than CAMM MR, we need theatre level defence and ABM capability, SAMP/T and Arrow 3 as an interim then do joint development with the T83 program for a UK solution.

          • And there lies our quandry Jim. The RN wants Astor NT for the T45’s, the ground based version is SAMP/T. Yet we have signed up for the European Sky Shield Initiative headed by Germany, which is proposing a layered system comprising of;
            IRIS-T SBM – med range
            Patriot -Long range
            Arrow 3 – VLR.

            Obviously no real joined up thinking going on you might argue, but, who knows what we might end up with? Surffice to say that we all know that the few CAMMS batteries we have aren’t remotely enough.

          • I’m guessing with sky shield the UK contribution will be Radar data and all the missiles will be in Germany. I seen no serious commitments by the UK as yet on the program.

            Clearly as missiles are likely to cross Germany to get to us sky shield participation is worth while for us but the UK should at the very least buy some Arrow 3 as well. It will also give us a hard kill anti sat capability.

            I see navy work on Aster NT as more of a specific capability to deal with anti ship ballistic missiles.

            It’s not a system well placed to deal with ICBM threat to the UK unlike Arrow 3.

            The cost of purchasing arrow 3 especially given we already have the targeting radar and can tap on the German order is probably much less than £2 billion.

          • agree on the arrow 3 For the UK…Russia can lob ballistic missiles at us that would avoid the German system.

            That’s not to take anything from the Germany procurement of Arrow 3…that’s 4 billions dollars of a pretty good ABM system that has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle….it’s also very very cheap for what it is..lets not forget the US will all in all have probably shelled out well over 100billion of its ground based interceptors….but no ABM system is going to protect you from more than 10-20 warheads from a handful, of ICBMs…it’s not really a strategic Shield..but what it would mean is Russia would not have the start small option…it’s would have to be an all out attack….and we all know that’s essentially triggering the MAD button…so it’s actually a very impactful move by Germany….shame France got in a snit…it’s not like Europe has the capability to build and deploy an ICBM level interceptor….there are only 3 options…2 US 1 Israeli….for the cost of a couple of hundred million each I think giving the UK the ability to defend against a modest number of ICBMs is a very good idea.

            the Uk is also very open to attack by the Russian SSGN fleet, infact russia has also pretty much converted all its SSNs to long range strike platforms…that a fair number of cruise missiles…probably in the couple of hundred mark…and we know the Northern European ports in military infrastructure would be the primary target…so we need better defences against cruise missiles as well…..infact one thing the Ukraine war has shown us Is that for the UK to not have a very good air defence system that can manage mass cruise missile attack and some level of ballistic missile attack is criminal..considering Russia has shown how willing it is to use these weapon systems…..Russia considers us an enemy…that is very clear…at present NATO means that a war with Russia is unlikely…but NATO falling apart is only one bad US president alway.

          • For hypersonic trajectory in the 20km to 100km layer, no solution is good yet. In US, it is the interlayer between Patriot and Thaad. In Europe it is between Aster 30 and an antibalistic system, to be made. This inter layer should be covered by program Twister and perhaps another initiative from Spain.

          • Hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) cruise at different heights. The cruise missile is above 80,000 to 150,000ft for much of its transit flight. Whereas HGVs transit above 150,000ft. Both the SM6 and THAAD top out at around 125,000ft. Which is why China made the bold statement a few years ago saying their HGV (DF-ZF) could not be intercepted.

            However, both the SM6 and THAAD are getting major upgrades, to increase their effective interception heights. The SM6 already uses the 1st stage booster from the SM3. It will now have a main body redesign that increases its diameter so it can carry more fuel and a bigger rocket motor. Raytheon have stated this modification is designed so that it can intercept HGVs.

            The US Army has selected SM6 as their “Mid-Range Capability” system. Which was intended to fill the gap between Patriot and THAAD. However, with the upgrade SM6 is getting, it could in essence replace both Patriot and THAAD.

          • The Arrow 3 now has a proven capability. As it shot down a Houthi ballistic missile fired from Yemen heading towards Israel on the 31st Oct 2023. The interception took place in low earth orbit, so outside of the atmosphere.

            There are no reports of which missile it shot down. But it would definitely have been an Iranian one “gifted” to the Houthis.

          • “That’s not to take anything from the Germany procurement of Arrow 3…that’s 4 billions dollars of a pretty good ABM system that has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle”

            Bear in mind that Germany’s procurement of the Arrow 3 is considered one of the most puzzling decisions by experts in the ABM field. The Arrow 3 is basically useless against any of the ballistic missiles Russia currently uses Iskander and Kinzhal.

          • The Arrow 3 is basically useless against any of the ballistic missiles Russia currently uses Iskander and Kinzhal

            We are not privy to Arrow 3 precise capabilities, neither intel in Russian missiles.

          • “We are not privy to Arrow 3 precise capabilities, neither intel in Russian missiles.”

            We don’t have to be. A lot about the Arrow 3 is public knowledge. There are even publicly available photos of the KV used on the internet similarly to how there are photos and videos of the KV used in US ABM systems. The fact remains is the Arrow 3 is designed for exoatmospheric interception. The Iskander and the Kinzhal don’t go up that high. Again we know this due to the now defunct INF treaty as well as estimates that can be fairly accurately made by the knowing the size and stages of these missiles.

            The only logical explanation is Germany is thinking long term and believes that due to the said scrapped INF, Russia will soon restart development of their RS-26 missile which they stopped developing some years ago but now are free to do so.

          • Arrow 3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor as per SM3. Both Iskander and Kinzhal are endoatmospheric quasi-ballistic missiles. So technically Arrow 3 isn’t designed to intercept these missiles. However IAI who designed Arrow 3, have stated that it can engage threats from 100km. Which is right on the limit of where space is recognized.

            Missiles such as Iskander and Kinzhal can be programmed to fly either a normal or flattened quasi-ballistic profile. As such they normally reach altitudes of 50km (164,000ft). Which is in the territory of the Arrow 2 missile.

            Both Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 are combat proven. With Arrow 3 shooting down a Iranian provided ballistic missile fired from Yemen by the Houthi’s at Israel on the 31st Oct.

          • The Arrow 3 is a system adapted for a small territory (point défense). Is it good for a country larger? I have heard that interceptors are fine in space but not suited in the ineterlayer (hypersonic range). Some development may be needed to complete the Skyshield initiative.

          • Perhaps you Brits could/should persuade Uncle Sugar to deploy Patriot batteries in vicinity of USAF (or other US organizations w/ vested interests in UK) occupied airfield(s)/other installations (e.g., RAF Fairford, Fylingdales, HMNB Clyde, Menwith Hill, etc.) Relatively simple matter of self-interest, which would satisfy one facet of proposed GBAD umbrella architecture. Should be able to finesse this deployment as an AUKUS Pillar 2 initiative. The key is to implement sooner than later. 🤔😳

          • Not sure the US has enough Patriot systems to go round, judging by the report from a Defence hearing. Plus I’ve heard Raytheon are maxed out producing replacement PAC 3 missiles for Countries donating older versions to Ukraine.

          • Possibly over the short-term, but believe Raytheon (and subs) have a plan to increase production capability substantially over a several year timeframe. Whether they actually achieve that…🤞

          • Should have also included RAF Alconbury and Mildenhall. (Probably a number of others unintentionally omitted.)

          • Lakenheath, Feltwell, Molesworth, and Croughton/Barford St John. There isn’t much at Alconbury now its a support site. The others all have strategic assets/infrastructure.

          • Cheers John, don’t know that much about the system to be fair. Still believe we should go with CAMM though, both ER and MR as we are part of the development team. Both have enough utility to be used at sea and as a GBAD solution, would save us buying into a different system. My thoughts only I might add.

  3. I guess the UK can hide behind this shield, because there is no Integrated Air & Missile Defence of the UK. Defence Analysis have certainly gone big on this as a glaring capability gap..

  4. It’s worth noting that this is in addition to previous contracts around the short range verson of CAMM as well as the contract for development of the Medium range version of CAMM signed in sept…this was in the small print at the bottom of the MBDA press release…

    • Need to see some 20/40′ container based CAMM so it can be put on more ships that don’t have it yet or any SAM. Lol 😂.

  5. It is completely bonkers the lack of investment in a UK integrated air defence system for our key infrastructure…its well recognised that the Russian strategic view is that its building and refining its sub force to sit in a bastion and lob cruise and ballistic missiles at NATO bases…the UK is profoundly open to attack by cruise and ballistic missiles from the Russian submarine force…so why on why are we not investing in ground based air defence for our key infrastructure…it’s very well documented that airborne based air defence is not adequate for dealing with cruise missiles ( you end up looking down over a cluttered environment to find the things ) and is completely irrelevant in regard to ballistic missiles…you have to have ground based launchers and sensors at the place being attacked. You could use seaborne based air defences, but will we want to chain our escort fleet to cruising close to key infrastructure to protect it..that would be a bonkers waste of money.

    • True by GBAD is a terrible way to defend against cruise missiles. Look at S400 verses stromshadow.

      Realistically it is drones carrying airborne radar and and probably air to air missiles that is the solution.

      GBAD is more increasingly effective against ballistic missiles and will likely continue to get better. It’s now very worth while for a small dense country like the UK to invest in buying something like Arrow 3.

      It won’t stop world war 3 but it’s far more likely we would get in to a limited exchange now a days and in such a scenario such a system could be highly effective. Even as a deterrent.

      • Hi Jim all of the studies I have ready say it’s the other way around using aircraft and airborne radar is not the way to defend against cruise missiles…or ballistic missiles..

        for cruise missiles are generally quite small, stealthy and fly at the nap of the earth, this makes them very difficult for airborne radar to detect..look up ground based radar although limited by the radar horizon actually have the better chance of tracking…as for intercepting by air, the difficulty in detection and tracking means that unless the aircraft is in the right place at the right time, it’s never going to manage an intercept…it can be done and the F35 especially has very good sensors..but you still need very early detection and be able to put the plane in the right place..that is why the US and so many nations spend a fortune on ground based interception…..and it works very well…over that last decade Israel has probably had around 20,000 missiles and rockets fired….most are intercepted by ground based systems.

        As for ballistic missiles your only option is ground based interception.

        • Your right about cruise missiles and ground based radar but then your probably going to need a radar every few miles around the coast and all the way in land.

          the UK is riddled with mountains especially in the north and west which is the likely direction of approach and ground based radars won’t give you much coverage out to sea.

          Modern AESA radars are very good at picking up from a cluttered background.

          F35 could easily do this job if you could afford enough of them to keep on station.

          It also now possible to combine E7 data with ground based weapons for intercept. E7 not cheap but it’s cheap compared to GBAD battery radar at-least to purchase and can cover wide range.

          Modern day GBAD radars for big systems are clocking in at the $1billion range and no matter how good they are you are never going to be able to see over even a smallish hill with them.

        • The best defence against Cruise Missiles is probably a combination of both – Aircraft can be particularly effective though , the Mig 31 was built to counter Cruise Missiles for instance , an Israeli F35I managed to shoot one down quite easily that was launched from Yemen a few days ago.

    • Very true it’s Crazy we have no Missile defence system for UK infrastructure and our Military bases .Ok the odd Sky Sabre here or there but know we have them Station in Poland no idea how many platforms but like I’ve said on other posts the Polish have built there AD up ,so it’s time out government think of looking after the UK bring them home.Had for the Sky Sabre in the Falklands island’s that’s fair enough .🇬🇧 👍

    • Mate, you got that the wrong way round! Using a combination of AEW and fighter aircraft with look-down shoot-down capabilities, is the proven way to combat cruise missiles from a stand-off range.

      Ground based radar is limited by the geographical horizon. Therefore, it can provide only limited timely warning of an impending attack. Whereas an AEW platform being a lot higher has an extended horizon. Therefore, it can provide a warning a lot sooner.

      In the 1980’s with the development of Pulse-doppler radars. These gave fighter aircraft the ability to look down at the ground and pick out moving targets against the clutter. They also used certain layers of filtering to remove slow moving objects, such as vehicles. Making it easier to pick out cruise missiles. Todays digital radars, using active electronically scanned array (AESA), floating point fourier analysis and signal processing.

      The Sentry’s AN/APY-2 PESA radar was/is particularly good at detecting cruise missiles. The sole reason for the Sea King AEW was to provide extended warning from sea skimming anti-ship missiles. When fitted with the Nimrod’s Searchwater radar and flying at 10,000ft. It could provide a better warning than a ship’s lower mast mounted radar.

      • Hi Davey

        i will leave you with a quote from RAND on air base defence against cruise missiles

        ”Unless the United States deploys huge numbers of ground-based radars to a future theater, most cruise missiles will go undetected by existing air defense systems.”

        another quote from navy lookout this time..

        “A handful of Typhoon aircraft are held at readiness on Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) to launch against any intrusion or suspicious aircraft detected nearby or entering UK Airspace. The Typhoon is exceptionally effective when up against small numbers of manned combat aircraft but may struggle to detect small low-flying targets ( it was a piece on cruise missile defence).

        Basically the the Achilles heel of airborne based hard kill is the low, slow cruise missile….although the very best Airborne AEW can detect them it’s the interceptors ability to being in the right place and then follow up from the early warning, by engaging, getting a kill chain and destroying.…so you really need the land based system close to the priority targets.

        Yes you need your airborne early warning but if your depending on fighter aircraft as your hard kill option you’re going to fail to intercept.. it’s why most nations are seriously developing their ground based systems…and going for density.

        • Now that the Sentry has retired from the RAF. I can say a few things about it. However, as it’s still used by NATO I won’t go into specifics.

          It is published that Sentry’s radar has a number of issues. Some of these are it cannot discriminate between a flock of birds and drones that are traveling at a similar speed. Also it cannot discriminate between individual objects when they’re in a close proximity.

          A lot of this is caused by the radar’s transmitted beam pattern, but also due to the AN/APY-2 being a passive electronically scanned array (PESA). As although the beam pattern is narrow in azimuth, it is tall in elevation. This is due to the antenna array shape. Which again is why the MESA on Wedgetail is large and rectangular (almost a square).

          However, Senty’s radar had/has no issues detecting low flying high speed cruise missiles. As their velocity is above the filtering threshold.

          The Northrop Grumman developed MESA radar fitted to Wedgetail, is a step change in capabilities over Sentry. As it’s an AESA radar it has a broader spread of operational frequencies it can transmit on. Rather than a PESA’s one central frequency. But just as importantly the size and shape of the squarish side arrays. Means that the transmitted beam pattern is much more circular and narrow. Which also has a dramatic effect on the reception pattern as well.

          Therefore, it can sweep over objects in close proximity to each other and can discriminate between them. Also as it can sweep through the transmitted frequencies, when these hit a target, the return Doppler pattern gives a unique fingerprint of the object. Thus allowing signal processing to discriminate between a flock of birds and slow moving UAVs that contain metal parts.

          Radar transmitted waveforms, filtering and signal processing has come a very long way since Sentry’s mid-life update.

          The Captor-M radar was based on the Blue Vixen radar fitted to Harrier FSR2, which itself used some of the Foxhunter radar concepts. In particular the ability to look down and shoot down very low flying objects. This was a specific RN requirement, which would allow a Sea Harrier to shoot down a number of sea skimming missiles using AMRAAM.

          Typhoon’s Captor-M is an evolutionary step over Blue Vixen. It also has been consistently upgraded and is rated as the best mechanically scanned fighter radar. I can tell you that Typhoon has absolutely no issues shooting down either very fast or slow moving low altitude targets, including hovering helicopters with either Meteor or ASRAAM.

          The biggest issue is using a £800k ASRAAM or a >£1M Meteor to take out £1500 quadcopter drone.

          Further to the QRA question the number of aircraft held on Q and the aircraft’s load out is determined by the current and expected threat. Standard load out would be 4 Meteors, drop tanks and a pair of ASRAAM. This can change to increase the missiles carried to match the expected threat. Further, if the threat to NATO or the UK got anywhere near to what Ukraine was initially facing. Then the alert status would have ramped up accordingly. With more aircraft on Q along with heavier load outs.

          The UK is blessed with being a group of Islands. Therefore does not have a land based next door neighbour, unless you include the Republic of Ireland! This means that an opponent must gain control of the seas to deny the airspace through surface launched air defences.

          This is a problem that Ukraine is facing. Russia can layer its surface based SAMs to create an umbrella that denies Ukraine freedom of movement for its aircraft over and near to the front line.

          This is expounded by Ukraine not having any AEW platforms, whereas Russia does. Ukraine has to rely on mobile ground based radar. Which means anything flying low is not detected until it comes over the Ukrainian radar’s relatively close horizon. Thus making Ukraine operate purely reactively in air defence. Rather than have aircraft provide a stand-off defence. Which is one of the reasons Odessa gets so heavily hit.

          The Achilles heal for air defence is the lack of long range radars fitted to aircraft, further compounded by a lack of numbers of AEW platforms. The RAF chiefs know full well that 3, let alone 5 Wedgetails cannot proved 24/7 coverage over the UK’s Flight Information Regions (FIRs). You would need at least 12. Plus a few more to cover areas west of Ireland. Thankfully we are part of NATO, where are Eastern flanks are well covered.

  6. If the U.K. needs an anti air missile with a range of 40+ kilometres to ‘defend critical infrastructure’ then I think we might have a bigger defence problem.

  7. the prime minister has allocated another 11.2 billion for the military, would it not make more sense to use 4 billion of this money so we can have the same as Poland is getting. or is that to simple ..??

  8. Silly old me has banged on in the past about the UK’s vulnerability to incoming sub-launched missiles and drones from the Atlantic. Back in the day certainly in the1980s the Americans were well aware of this. I hope somebody in the MoD has a plan to give the UK all-round cover from this point on.

    Also, does anybody know if the UK has already got, or has any plans to immediately get a UK-wide integrated air defence system like Ukraine’s system. i.e. the United States’ Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS)?

  9. MBDA is not a wholly British firm, it’s a multinational. headline is misleading…BAE/UK own just over a 1/3:

    Airbus (37.5%)
    BAE Systems (37.5%)
    Leonardo (25%)

    • Almost 1B of that order is said to be for Italian MBDA . They make the engines and other pieces for CAMM-ER.

      Neverthless the headline might not be misleading if was the MBDA UK alone that signed the order.

      For example for Eurofighter, the Qatar order was signed by BAe while the Koweit order was signed by Leonardo. Still both will have work in both orders.

  10. Well we could have usual negative moany conversation about the lack of GBAD or we could say

    ‘This is great step towards having an UK IP system developed and integrated?’

    Having a larger and larger family of relatively cost effective missiles might well mean that we could actually afford a comprehensive system that could defend the majority of critical national infrastructure.

    I’m unconvinced that we can really defend the whole land mass but we can defiantly make the calculus harder for anyone taking pot shots at us by making sure there is a remaining capability to hit back.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here